I should be able to listen to Phil Anselmo, or eat Chik-fil-A or buy the model glue I huff from Hobby Lobby without judgment or backlash. That's not always the case.

How so? Seriously you're probably one of the most bullheaded, stubborn people I've ever met online (I mean that in a good way, mostly ) I'm convinced you just do what you're gonna do, eat what you want, listen to what you want. If not then I'm really confused.

Mostly; but there are times when I opt out of a line of thought for no reason than I think some people will not be able to look past the patina of the statement and will make it something it's not. This is less about a Phil Anselmo record (I think he blows, frankly) than it is subverting rational, intelligent thought. There was an article in Discover Magazine - has to be 20 years ago now - that talked about "Race", from a scientific point of view. The editors put in a commentary from them that read, basically, that "we don't THINK there are material differences in race - any attributes that might be attributed to race might also be reasonably attributed to culture or environment - but even if there was, we feel stronger that society can't handle those differences. It's better for society in the short term to gloss over differences under the guise of "we're all the same on the inside" because the differences won't be exploited for good, but will be preyed upon for bad." I agree with that.

Transgender is a great example; there is a line of scientific reasoning that says that that is a mental disorder. Real science, credible scholars say that (I believe it is still in the DSM as such). How long would I last on Twatter if I made that my last stand?

As I've said before, shaming is not bullying. If you feel shame after somebody calls you out on something that is because some part of you at least knows your actions are wrong. Being called out on wrong behavior is not a problem IMO. And bullying requires a power dynamic. Some guy in the street calling you out on your manners has no power you don't have and is ergo not bullying.

This really resonated with me, because it highlights where I see the line being, subjective though it might seem. There are some things that are patently wrong: killing someone for the sport of it. Punching someone in the face and stealing their sneakers. Recording a prog-rock album in 10 days and claiming it is your opus (just kidding). Other things, not so much. When you call someone out because YOU think it's wrong, and not because it might be "objectively" wrong, is when it morphs into the behavior we're talking about. I have the right to think that being gay is an aberration (I don't, but bear with me). I have the right to believe that being transgender is a mental condition, and not just an "alternate reality" (my jury is out on that one, to be honest). I have the right to believe that those accused of sexual assault ought to at least be indicted by a competent body of law enforcement/judicial system before they begin to suffer consequences (I do believe that). To run afoul of any of those, at any given time, is to bear the wrath of the Twitter-verse (I use that as a euphemism for those whose sensitivity on PC matters is perhaps a shade high).

Quote

Quote

NO; there's no "consideration of other's feelings". It's kowtowing to avoid a hassle. I should be able to listen to Phil Anselmo, or eat Chik-fil-A or buy the model glue I huff from Hobby Lobby without judgment or backlash.

Why? Why should your actions only exist in a vacuum?

See above; they don't exist in a vacuum; but why should I be forced to accept your version of the moral code? If I want to vote for Donald Trump, for whatever reason, I should be able to (I did NOT, for the record). If I vote for him because I want a shiny new white America, with no blacks, Jews, or Muslims, that's my right. That's a shade hyperbolic, but the reality comes in when you vote for a Trump because you like his immigration plan, or you are for the repeal of the ACA, but you get tarnished as a racist - a "deplorable" - because you don't make that your number one, over-arching, deal-breaker criteria for selecting your President. I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary (I went independent) but I can guarantee you, I wasn't going to JUST pick the candidate that I thought was "least racist", and that's what many want us to do. That's the ESSENCE of the "deplorable" comment.

Reasonable point. Perhaps a better description would be "anti-social/hurtful behavior". What constitutes as wrong does of course depend on your moral philosophy, which is not an absolute thing. I will say that in general the loudest voices are not necessarily the most powerful ones however.

Reasonable point. Perhaps a better description would be "anti-social/hurtful behavior". What constitutes as wrong does of course depend on your moral philosophy, which is not an absolute thing. I will say that in general the loudest voices are not necessarily the most powerful ones however.

By the way, XJDenton, good conversation. I'm enjoying this.

Damn, I was literally going to say just the opposite when I saw this comment. Guys, this is like the worst discussion we've had in a long time. It's proven day after day that the pro-PC crowd and the anti-PC crowd don't see eye to eye, in every fundamental way. I know WE can discuss civilly, but where's it gonna go? I'm already wanting to bang my head against a wall trying to figure how people land on a certain mindset.

It's been said before: the pendulum. Unfortunately it seems like one side doesn't realize that they are pushing too far. It's going to undo any good change they could have hoped for because everyone else is going to actively fight back.

I definitely think there is a line being crosses with what some people call "PC Culture" but it's way further than most people see. There's nothing wrong with wanting to stop people from being passive assholes, but when things get into "call-out culture", there's a pretty big problem with a lot of kids these days. (says the 26 year old )

Reasonable point. Perhaps a better description would be "anti-social/hurtful behavior". What constitutes as wrong does of course depend on your moral philosophy, which is not an absolute thing. I will say that in general the loudest voices are not necessarily the most powerful ones however.

By the way, XJDenton, good conversation. I'm enjoying this.

Damn, I was literally going to say just the opposite when I saw this comment. Guys, this is like the worst discussion we've had in a long time. It's proven day after day that the pro-PC crowd and the anti-PC crowd don't see eye to eye, in every fundamental way. I know WE can discuss civilly, but where's it gonna go? I'm already wanting to bang my head against a wall trying to figure how people land on a certain mindset.

It's been said before: the pendulum. Unfortunately it seems like one side doesn't realize that they are pushing too far. It's going to undo any good change they could have hoped for because everyone else is going to actively fight back.

As one of the leading proponents of the "Pendulum TheoryTM of modern American politics, a little give and take is necessary and required. The problem here - and I'll table it after this but it's relevant and related - is that much like the "moralization" of politics we're seeing by one party, we're trying to stop the pendulum entirely. There are always exceptions, but I think when you have one side that doesn't really want their own way, but just wants to have a dialogue, and the other side is saying "NO! No dialogue for you! Back of the line!" that's sort of undermining the process.

To Sylvan's point, I sort of see where XJDenton is coming from. WITHIN REASON, I don't think "educating" the masses is a bad thing, as long as you tolerate their answer if they decide not to follow your lead. What I object to is when the reaction shuts down the conversation altogether. When I'm so afraid of the reaction that I don't even bother putting the idea out there to begin with. That doesn't help anyone.

Kind of related to this but reading the discussions on Sean White in regards to his comments and dragging the flag. I'm so tired of so and so did xyz and users on (inserts social media name) are OUTRAGED. Apparently EVERYONE is expected to be perfect and never make mistakes and people on the internet are perfect and never do anything wrong. Why is everyone so outraged all the time? I think that there should be a holiday where every single form of social medai get's shut off though I'm sure the outrage would destroy the planet.

Transgender is a great example; there is a line of scientific reasoning that says that that is a mental disorder. Real science, credible scholars say that (I believe it is still in the DSM as such). How long would I last on Twatter if I made that my last stand?

As a counterpoint, homosexuality was also classed as a mental disorder in the DSM in some form or another up until 1987. "Disorder" is not a neat category in any case, and does, whether you agree it should or not, have a stigma attached to it. People do not like to feel broken, or inferior. There are ways to assist transgender individuals that do not do that.

This really resonated with me, because it highlights where I see the line being, subjective though it might seem. There are some things that are patently wrong: killing someone for the sport of it.

By what objective measure is murder wrong? What is the measurable?

Quote

Recording a prog-rock album in 10 days and claiming it is your opus (just kidding).

Careful now.

Quote

When you call someone out because YOU think it's wrong, and not because it might be "objectively" wrong, is when it morphs into the behavior we're talking about. I have the right to think that being gay is an aberration (I don't, but bear with me). I have the right to believe that being transgender is a mental condition, and not just an "alternate reality" (my jury is out on that one, to be honest). I have the right to believe that those accused of sexual assault ought to at least be indicted by a competent body of law enforcement/judicial system before they begin to suffer consequences (I do believe that). To run afoul of any of those, at any given time, is to bear the wrath of the Twitter-verse (I use that as a euphemism for those whose sensitivity on PC matters is perhaps a shade high).

Sure, you have the right to believe those things, and express them. However equally they have the right to express their displeasure at the idea. Disagreement is not coercion. If you want to live your life without having your opinions challenged or judged...well, that sounds rather like a safe-space to me.

Quote

See above; they don't exist in a vacuum; but why should I be forced to accept your version of the moral code?

Again, how are you being forced to do so? The fact that literal nazis/communists are allowed to spout their shit in spite of the last 80 years of American history is a pretty clear indicator that its not possible for even a majority group to force people to think a certain way regardless of "bullying", shaming and other social pressure (in the US at least).

Quote

If I want to vote for Donald Trump, for whatever reason, I should be able to (I did NOT, for the record).

You can, and lots of people did.

Quote

If I vote for him because I want a shiny new white America, with no blacks, Jews, or Muslims, that's my right.

And people did.

Quote

That's a shade hyperbolic, but the reality comes in when you vote for a Trump because you like his immigration plan, or you are for the repeal of the ACA, but you get tarnished as a racist - a "deplorable" - because you don't make that your number one, over-arching, deal-breaker criteria for selecting your President.

See, that's fine in the abstract but rather falls down when you deal with practical reality in my opinion. I will never argue that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. That is patently false. What I will argue however is that by voting for him they were voting for a man who made it exceptionally clear on the campaign trail that he was happy courting racists, hiring racist people, and supporting racist policies while having a thorough disregard for due process, and thus even if a voter wasn't racist, they at least did not care about this enough to be a deal breaker for them and did in part make these racist proposals a practical reality. For the people who will be on the sharp end of the stick when it comes to these policies, the fact that they personally aren't racist is not going to be a significant comfort to them. In practical terms, being actively racist and simply apathetic have much the same effect.

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." - Pink Floyd, Close to the Edge.

For some people, these "disagreements on deal breakers" cut a hell of a lot deeper than a disagreement on whether something should be privatised or not. Some of these deal breakers are literally the difference between life and death, between a family being together and being ripped apart, between allowing to stay where you've lived your whole life or being thrown out with nothing. At which point "well, lets agree to disagree" simply does not cut it.

Quote

Damn, I was literally going to say just the opposite when I saw this comment. Guys, this is like the worst discussion we've had in a long time.

Not a reddit user then?

Quote

It's proven day after day that the pro-PC crowd and the anti-PC crowd don't see eye to eye, in every fundamental way. I know WE can discuss civilly, but where's it gonna go? I'm already wanting to bang my head against a wall trying to figure how people land on a certain mindset.

I had the exact same sentiment to PC culture that has been expressed in this thread by many people not so long ago. This opinion changed. I would not bother arguing if I did not think I would change some minds, or at least plant a seed of an alternate viewpoint. The point is not to win the extremes, it is to sway the much larger middle ground.

Transgender is a great example; there is a line of scientific reasoning that says that that is a mental disorder. Real science, credible scholars say that (I believe it is still in the DSM as such). How long would I last on Twatter if I made that my last stand?

As a counterpoint, homosexuality was also classed as a mental disorder in the DSM in some form or another up until 1987. "Disorder" is not a neat category in any case, and does, whether you agree it should or not, have a stigma attached to it. People do not like to feel broken, or inferior. There are ways to assist transgender individuals that do not do that.

Fine, but when professionals schooled in the topic move it from the DSM to another classification based on hard data and replicable research, I'm in. If it's a diagnosable mental disorder, we should be able to call it such without being shamed because someone's feelings are hurt. I'm short. There's no other word for it. SHORT. Not "height challenged", not "under grown", not Pre full post completed development". I get that we don't like to feel broken or inferior, but the hard reality is that there are conditions that require description either for treatment purposes or other classifications.

I define that as a unilateral, non-negotiable, irreversible violation of a fundamental right that government - our government at least - has deemed a fundamental inalienable right.

Quote

Sure, you have the right to believe those things, and express them. However equally they have the right to express their displeasure at the idea. Disagreement is not coercion. If you want to live your life without having your opinions challenged or judged...well, that sounds rather like a safe-space to me.

But here's the thing. I don't mind the "expression", until the "expression" moves into action. We can debate whether it's a good standard or not, but a common standard between what is acceptable when it comes to things that might reasonably be deemed "bad" (subject to any definition we might agree on for that) is when it transforms into "action". We - in theory, anyway - allow people to have certain thoughts - be it raping, killing, racial, whatever - but they don't get to act on them. Why do the SJWs get to act on theirs?

Quote

Again, how are you being forced to do so? The fact that literal nazis/communists are allowed to spout their shit in spite of the last 80 years of American history is a pretty clear indicator that its not possible for even a majority group to force people to think a certain way regardless of "bullying", shaming and other social pressure (in the US at least).

Well, "allowed" is a loose term. When you have organized CD boycotts against Phil Anselmo for some of the shit he's said (Ted Nugent, too) I would argue that "allow" is not being accurately applied.

Quote

Quote

If I want to vote for Donald Trump, for whatever reason, I should be able to (I did NOT, for the record).

You can, and lots of people did.

Not without recrimination, though. You vote for him, you risk being labeled a "deplorable". You said before that people don't like consider themselves broken or inferior. Why doesn't that apply here?

Quote

Quote

If I vote for him because I want a shiny new white America, with no blacks, Jews, or Muslims, that's my right.

And people did.

Prove it. You have no idea whether that is true or not. All you have is Hillary telling you that's so.

Quote

See, that's fine in the abstract but rather falls down when you deal with practical reality in my opinion. I will never argue that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. That is patently false. What I will argue however is that by voting for him they were voting for a man who made it exceptionally clear on the campaign trail that he was happy courting racists, hiring racist people, and supporting racist policies while having a thorough disregard for due process, and thus even if a voter wasn't racist, they at least did not care about this enough to be a deal breaker for them and did in part make these racist proposals a practical reality. For the people who will be on the sharp end of the stick when it comes to these policies, the fact that they personally aren't racist is not going to be a significant comfort to them. In practical terms, being actively racist and simply apathetic have much the same effect.

No. He made it seem clear to those that were predisposed to think that about him. "Hiring racist people" is exactly what I'm talking about. Why shouldn't you if you feel they are the most qualified? Well, the answer is because "racism" is a silver bullet that trumps everything. Which I just said is my perceived flaw with the PC argument. If you're the Patriots, and you hear Brady use the word "n*****", do you cut him from the team? That's what I mean; I don't think you do (forget for the sake argument about the divisive nature of that in a locker room for a sport that is 65% African American, about 5 times the national average).

Quote

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." - Pink Floyd, Close to the Edge.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, good one. I liked that.

Quote

I had the exact same sentiment to PC culture that has been expressed in this thread by many people not so long ago. This opinion changed. I would not bother arguing if I did not think I would change some minds, or at least plant a seed of an alternate viewpoint. The point is not to win the extremes, it is to sway the much larger middle ground.

Well, I take a slightly different approach; for me, I don't think I'm 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong. We are all reasonably smart and have reasonably different experiences. I feel an obligation to incorporate ALL accurate facts into my world view, even if I don't agree with them (or where they lead) because I don't want to live in a vacuum. So talking with people like you forces me to evolve my world view - even if slightly - to incorporate those aspects of your argument that I'm not yet dealing with appropriately enough.

Transgender is not a disorder in the DSM. You're thinking of gender dysphoria.

PMS, however, is.

The DSM is not hard science. It's a perspective. It is also focused on disorder meaning something that makes life difficult and challenging in a more than tolerable way. Homelessness is listed in it as well. The reason something like gender dysphoria is in the DSM is because experiencing it, in our society, causes a ton of mental anguish, not because it's a mental imbalance, which I think you're implying.

Also I don't know why you're even bringing up transgender, since the rest of your sentence is about terminology. No one is being outraged at the use of transgender.

People do not like to feel broken, or inferior. There are ways to assist transgender individuals that do not do that.

That's a fair point as long as there is a line drawn. Trying in some ways to not make people feel MORE broken/inferior is a nice idea, as long as it doesn't ignore, or even rewrite, the facts. Some people are broken. Some people are inferior (I don't necessarily mean lgbtq, but we have a term... "Average", which entails that some are superior, some are inferior). That's just a fact.

Quote

By what objective measure is murder wrong? What is the measurable?

Considering he said "killing someone for the sport of it", I would argue that being ILLEGAL in every country on this planet is as close as you can get to an objective measure on the subjective matter of morality.

Quote

Disagreement is not coercion. If you want to live your life without having your opinions challenged or judged...well, that sounds rather like a safe-space to me.

In this particular example, for instance, if the person had watched Peter Rabbit and thought to themselves, "That's not funny, and it's insensitive to people with food allergies," and stopped at that... we have DISAGREEMENT. But, when the person took to twitter to inform people, not just that the scene exists, but that it is patently "food-allergy bullying", and also attached to super clever hashtag #BoycottPeterRabbit... we go way past disagreement and into COERCION. And at no point could any rational person describe this persons actions as challenging an opinion.

Quote

The fact that literal nazis/communists are allowed to spout their shit in spite of the last 80 years of American history is a pretty clear indicator that its not possible for even a majority group to force people to think a certain way regardless of "bullying", shaming and other social pressure (in the US at least)

Earlier Stadler remarked on how he was surprised by the Church not caving to the public pressures of the parents and people that want the teacher to be reinstated. You have now used Nazis/Communists as an example of the same unwillingness to cave to those pressures. Those two groups have something in common... they give absolutely NO shits about what anyone else thinks. On top of that, they have no product to sell (we can argue that idea about Christianity at another time ). That these groups can't be bullied is a clear indicator of only that fact. Sony Pictures, Amazon, Walmart, Mom & Pop Small Business... they all have something to lose. And your characterization of it kinda implies that you believe the tactics being employed aren't bullying because you believe those on the other side CAN'T be bullied, and not that the TACTICS themselves aren't bullying.

For some people, these "disagreements on deal breakers" cut a hell of a lot deeper than a disagreement on whether something should be privatised or not. Some of these deal breakers are literally the difference between life and death, between a family being together and being ripped apart, between allowing to stay where you've lived your whole life or being thrown out with nothing. At which point "well, lets agree to disagree" simply does not cut it.

You say that like people have some inherent obligation to care. I was born in America; I know, lucky me , but I can't change that. While I'm aware of world events, and sympathetic to certain peoples to a certain degree, I have no obligation to make their problem my problem. Is it sad that families get ripped apart? YES. Is that the risk they took, and should they have to live with the consequences of how things play out? YES. Just because parents illegally brought their children here in hopes of a better life DOES NOT mean I have to provide them with that better life.

Quote

I had the exact same sentiment to PC culture that has been expressed in this thread by many people not so long ago. This opinion changed. I would not bother arguing if I did not think I would change some minds, or at least plant a seed of an alternate viewpoint. The point is not to win the extremes, it is to sway the much larger middle ground.

The thing is, a lot of people (I can really only speak for myself though) didn't arrive at their opinion through ambivalence. I have thought long and hard about this subject. I live on the MIDDLE GROUND. I'm not on the left telling people what they can say/think/feel, and I'm not way on the right yelling racist hateful shit at anyone/everyone. I can accept that some people don't want "marginalized" folk to feel bad, or have their feelings hurt or offended or emarassed or whatever. I can accept that some people just hate other races, think the gays are ruining society, and that the Jews are hoarding all the money. What I CANNOT accept is ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel. There are no words or alternate perspectives that will change that. And it's not that I'm stubborn, or don't care what you think. I'm not ignoring your perspective. I just think you're wrong. KKK members are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint. Flat-Earthers are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint.

Fine, but when professionals schooled in the topic move it from the DSM to another classification based on hard data and replicable research, I'm in. If it's a diagnosable mental disorder, we should be able to call it such without being shamed because someone's feelings are hurt. I'm short. There's no other word for it. SHORT. Not "height challenged", not "under grown", not Pre full post completed development". I get that we don't like to feel broken or inferior, but the hard reality is that there are conditions that require description either for treatment purposes or other classifications.

Again, I only feel shame for actions I know, at least partly, that are wrong. In any case, since the DSM has changed significantly over the last few decades I don't think it unreasonable to challenge parts of it. There's plenty of academics who believe characterising transgenderism as a disorder does more harm than good."

Quote

I define that as a unilateral, non-negotiable, irreversible violation of a fundamental right that government - our government at least - has deemed a fundamental inalienable right.

So if all 50 states ratified an amendment legalizing it you would be okay with it?

Quote

We - in theory, anyway - allow people to have certain thoughts - be it raping, killing, racial, whatever - but they don't get to act on them. Why do the SJWs get to act on theirs?

What illegal acts are "SJWs" allowed to do that others can't?

Quote

Well, "allowed" is a loose term. When you have organized CD boycotts against Phil Anselmo for some of the shit he's said (Ted Nugent, too) I would argue that "allow" is not being accurately applied.

A boycott does not restrict his speech. It is a consequence of his right to free speech being expressed. No practical definition of freedom is complete without the freedom to take the consequences.

Quote

Not without recrimination, though. You vote for him, you risk being labeled a "deplorable". You said before that people don't like consider themselves broken or inferior. Why doesn't that apply here?

I'd say it should apply, but at the same time I understand why a person who lost their ability to pay for their cancer treatment, has even less to spend on food for their children or see people who want your race dead elected to high office might feel more strongly on the subject.

Quote

Prove it. You have no idea whether that is true or not. All you have is Hillary telling you that's so.

And there's plenty of anecdotal evidence on Twitter and Reddit of individuals supporting Trump for such reasons. I'm also fairly certain the guys on Stormfront weren't voting Hillary. Not saying all Trump voters thought like that, just that there were some who did. Perhaps my wording was ambiguous.

Quote

No. He made it seem clear to those that were predisposed to think that about him.

Well them, and anyone who had paid the slightest attention to what he's said over the last 4 decades:

"Hiring racist people" is exactly what I'm talking about. Why shouldn't you if you feel they are the most qualified?

Because you're saying to your voterbase "I'm okay with people who think you are genetically inferior at best and should be either imprisoned or dead at worst being in charge of your freedoms"?

Quote

Well, the answer is because "racism" is a silver bullet that trumps everything.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

You'll have to forgive me if I think that a worldview that runs contrary to one of the core tenants of the foundation of your country is tad disqualifying for public office, or might be considered an important characteristic of any potential candidate.

Quote

If you're the Patriots, and you hear Brady use the word "n*****", do you cut him from the team?

I'm not familiar with Hockey, but yeah. You should. Or at least metaphorically smack his arse so hard he doesn't do it again.

And it's not that I'm stubborn, or don't care what you think. I'm not ignoring your perspective. I just think you're wrong. KKK members are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint. Flat-Earthers are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint.

I'm not sure I follow, what's the "alternate viewpoint" that you're equating with the KKK or flat-earthers here?

edit: I read the post again and all I can come up with is "ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel." That seems like pretty wide and subjective thing that you can apply however you want.

That's a fair point as long as there is a line drawn. Trying in some ways to not make people feel MORE broken/inferior is a nice idea, as long as it doesn't ignore, or even rewrite, the facts. Some people are broken. Some people are inferior (I don't necessarily mean lgbtq, but we have a term... "Average", which entails that some are superior, some are inferior). That's just a fact.

Averages describe numbers, and all human characteristics fall within a finite distribution. Saying "I have lower than average testorerone" is a fact. Saying "I have inferior testosterone" is not. And superiority/inferiority statement must be made in accordance with a subjective criteria (ask whether Usain bolts muscle mass is inferior or superior, you'll get different answers if you ask a sprinter or a climber). And I'll be honest, describing mental faculty and health in terms of superior/inferior sounds a hell of a lot like the kind of stuff eugenics was pumping out at the turn of the 20th century to me.

Quote

Considering he said "killing someone for the sport of it", I would argue that being ILLEGAL in every country on this planet is as close as you can get to an objective measure on the subjective matter of morality.

So we agree it isn't objective then. "Close to" doesn't cut it. It's either objective, or it isn't.

Quote

In this particular example, for instance, if the person had watched Peter Rabbit and thought to themselves, "That's not funny, and it's insensitive to people with food allergies," and stopped at that... we have DISAGREEMENT. But, when the person took to twitter to inform people, not just that the scene exists, but that it is patently "food-allergy bullying", and also attached to super clever hashtag #BoycottPeterRabbit... we go way past disagreement and into COERCION. And at no point could any rational person describe this persons actions as challenging an opinion.

If these people are COERCING people they evidently aren't very good at it given how many people in this thread have somehow managed to resist their propaganda and call them stupid.

Quote

Earlier Stadler remarked on how he was surprised by the Church not caving to the public pressures of the parents and people that want the teacher to be reinstated. You have now used Nazis/Communists as an example of the same unwillingness to cave to those pressures. Those two groups have something in common... they give absolutely NO shits about what anyone else thinks. On top of that, they have no product to sell (we can argue that idea about Christianity at another time ). That these groups can't be bullied is a clear indicator of only that fact. Sony Pictures, Amazon, Walmart, Mom & Pop Small Business... they all have something to lose.

They are selling their ideology, and the have followers and funding to lose. Plenty of ways they can be hurt financially.

Quote

And your characterization of it kinda implies that you believe the tactics being employed aren't bullying because you believe those on the other side CAN'T be bullied, and not that the TACTICS themselves aren't bullying.

Correct. Power over the victim is the key component to being a bully. If you remove that power, all you are left with is "being a dick to someone". And again, I find the idea that some people on twitter are somehow more powerful than Walmart or Sony is a tad ridiculous IMO.

Quote

You say that like people have some inherent obligation to care. I was born in America; I know, lucky me , but I can't change that. While I'm aware of world events, and sympathetic to certain peoples to a certain degree, I have no obligation to make their problem my problem. Is it sad that families get ripped apart? YES. Is that the risk they took, and should they have to live with the consequences of how things play out? YES. Just because parents illegally brought their children here in hopes of a better life DOES NOT mean I have to provide them with that better life.

You don't have to care, but equally you should not be surprised if a lot of other people with (to use your terminology) superior empathy find that attitude deplorable.

Quote

The thing is, a lot of people (I can really only speak for myself though) didn't arrive at their opinion through ambivalence. I have thought long and hard about this subject. I live on the MIDDLE GROUND. I'm not on the left telling people what they can say/think/feel, and I'm not way on the right yelling racist hateful shit at anyone/everyone.

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't think that people complaining about Peter rabbit on twitter and literal nazis are equidistant from the middle ground.

Quote

I can accept that some people don't want "marginalized" folk to feel bad, or have their feelings hurt or offended or emarassed or whatever. I can accept that some people just hate other races, think the gays are ruining society, and that the Jews are hoarding all the money. What I CANNOT accept is ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel. There are no words or alternate perspectives that will change that.

So the one thing you won't accept is also the one thing that has absolutely no effect on you?

And it's not that I'm stubborn, or don't care what you think. I'm not ignoring your perspective. I just think you're wrong. KKK members are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint. Flat-Earthers are just trying to sway people by giving an alternate viewpoint.

I'm not sure I follow, what's the "alternate viewpoint" that you're equating with the KKK or flat-earthers here?

edit: I read the post again and all I can come up with is "ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel." That seems like pretty wide and subjective thing that you can apply however you want.

As ludicrous as the idea is that the KKK believes that one race is superior (there's that word again!), or that Flat-Earthers believe the Earth is indeed flat, I find it just as ludicrous this PC bullying. We know, we know, they're on the right side of history. Ask the KKK if they think they're right, or listen to Flat-Earthers talk about how the governments of the world have been lying to us. Yup, all people on the RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.

I feel like I have a lot to say on some of this stuff, but by the time I have a minute to reply, there's been 20 posts and it makes it impossible.

So I will say this one tiny little thing which is likely of no consequence to anyone.

XJ, I agree with almost everything you're saying. I just want to make a point about the difference between guilt and shame. You're describing guilt, which is healthy, but using the word shame, which is not. Just a minor point, especially when Stadler is arguing against shame, not guilt.

I obviously disagree with a ton of what Sylvan and Stads are saying, but I don't know if I have the time/energy to be able to quote all of it line for line with a detailed rebuttal. Dammit.

Averages describe numbers, and all human characteristics fall within a finite distribution. Saying "I have lower than average testorerone" is a fact. Saying "I have inferior testosterone" is not. And superiority/inferiority statement must be made in accordance with a subjective criteria (ask whether Usain bolts muscle mass is inferior or superior, you'll get different answers if you ask a sprinter or a climber). And I'll be honest, describing mental faculty and health in terms of superior/inferior sounds a hell of a lot like the kind of stuff eugenics was pumping out at the turn of the 20th century to me.

First, not that it matters, but you're the one who used the word "inferior". My mistake for using the word "average". It's always word games, and that's why these things go nowhere. Okay, so people don't want to feel broken or inferior. But apparently all these criteria are subjective and there's no real starting point for what's considered better or worse. So if these things don't actually make someone inferior, why should anyone care if they FEEL inferior?

Quote

If these people are COERCING people they evidently aren't very good at it given how many people in this thread have somehow managed to resist their propaganda and call them stupid.

Apparently big business doesn't read DTF . You can argue against this label or that, declare it Free Market Capitalism... When people call for a boycott, that's $$$ to these companies. "How can a small group bully these large corporations? The power dynamic is not there!" When that small group has the potential to turn into a very large group, not because of a legitimate grievance, but because of mob mentality, then they have the power. They're not sending a message with their wallets, they're sending a message with social media. Social media is out of control, a major way people use it is to incite rage, and the companies know it.

Quote

They are selling their ideology, and the have followers and funding to lose. Plenty of ways they can be hurt financially.

Well, Nazis aren't going to lose funding or followers of their ideology when they spout hate speech. That IS their ideology, and that stuff doesn't drive any potential followers away. The Church, while having the real world potential to turn people (current and potential believers) away, that has no effect on their message, or their beliefs. They are not the NFL trying to find a way to exist in the modern world.

Quote

You don't have to care, but equally you should not be surprised if a lot of other people with (to use your terminology) superior empathy find that attitude deplorable.

That's the point! I DON'T CARE IF THEY FIND IT DEPLORABLE! Their opinion means nothing to me. But that's not what we're talking about. They can feel however they want to feel, as long as it ends there. Just because they find my attitude deplorable does not give them an extra right to affect my life in any negative way because of it.

Quote

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't think that people complaining about Peter rabbit on twitter and literal nazis are equidistant from the middle ground.

That's your opinion. I mostly disagree. (the Peter Rabbit "complainers" are not really the problem here, only just one small example of a much greater problem)

Quote

So the one thing you won't accept is also the one thing that has absolutely no effect on you?

Really? REALLY? NO effect? Tell that to anyone and everyone that has been a victim of these SJWs, had their lives turned upside down and/or irreparably altered because of some jackass misinterpreting another person's innocent comment/message/whatever and gathering the masses with their torches. These people go out of their way, devote actual time from their lives, to ABSOLUTELY EFFECT people in negative ways. Not trying to open dialogue, or change minds. Just plain old mob justice.

XJ, I agree with almost everything you're saying. I just want to make a point about the difference between guilt and shame. You're describing guilt, which is healthy, but using the word shame, which is not. Just a minor point, especially when Stadler is arguing against shame, not guilt.

In my opinion there is a lot of overlap between the two (to me, guilt is a form of shame), but I agree it is probably best we ensure we are at least arguing over the same concept.

Really? REALLY? NO effect? Tell that to anyone and everyone that has been a victim of these SJWs, had their lives turned upside down and/or irreparably altered because of some jackass misinterpreting another person's innocent comment/message/whatever and gathering the masses with their torches. These people go out of their way, devote actual time from their lives, to ABSOLUTELY EFFECT people in negative ways. Not trying to open dialogue, or change minds. Just plain old mob justice.

But sylvan, harrassment is just bad whatever the ideology behind it is.

Really? REALLY? NO effect? Tell that to anyone and everyone that has been a victim of these SJWs, had their lives turned upside down and/or irreparably altered because of some jackass misinterpreting another person's innocent comment/message/whatever and gathering the masses with their torches. These people go out of their way, devote actual time from their lives, to ABSOLUTELY EFFECT people in negative ways. Not trying to open dialogue, or change minds. Just plain old mob justice.

But sylvan, harrassment is just bad whatever the ideology behind it is.

Yes, and I see the distinction you're making. I believe XJ is making the same distinction. The only problem is, we are too. The ideas you guys are talking about are not offensive to me in any way. But we're not complaining about THOSE ideas. We're talking about the real world practice of a significant number of those same thinkers (not going to say "majority" cuz who knows, but it's for sure a lot of people at this point). They go beyond the simple ideas, and into a "war to be won at all costs". But maybe we don't see the calls for boycotts the same. If you contact a company or a person about a grievance in efforts to hopefully change something, then you've done your part. If you immediately take to social media to grow your group and actively call for a boycott, how is that not harassment?

You'll have to forgive me for insisting that certain words mean certain things. Especially when talking to someone who brings these words up in relation to statistics.

Quote

Okay, so people don't want to feel broken or inferior. But apparently all these criteria are subjective and there's no real starting point for what's considered better or worse. So if these things don't actually make someone inferior, why should anyone care if they FEEL inferior?

Empathy?

Quote

Apparently big business doesn't read DTF . You can argue against this label or that, declare it Free Market Capitalism... When people call for a boycott, that's $$$ to these companies. "How can a small group bully these large corporations? The power dynamic is not there!" When that small group has the potential to turn into a very large group, not because of a legitimate grievance, but because of mob mentality, then they have the power. They're not sending a message with their wallets, they're sending a message with social media. Social media is out of control, a major way people use it is to incite rage, and the companies know it.

True Capitalism allows companies to fail if they do not serve their consumers. And consumers are not required to be rational agents.

Quote

Well, Nazis aren't going to lose funding or followers of their ideology when they spout hate speech. That IS their ideology, and that stuff doesn't drive any potential followers away.

Of course it does. Why do you think the far right has tried to rebrand itself with terms like "alt-right"? Its because they want to bring in fresh people from the centre. Same way ISIL only survives if moderate Muslims get turned to the extreme. These groups thrive only when the conditions are right for their views to appeal to the mainstream.

Quote

The Church, while having the real world potential to turn people (current and potential believers) away, that has no effect on their message, or their beliefs. They are not the NFL trying to find a way to exist in the modern world.

Apart from all of those modernisation efforts many churches have made (with varying success). Listen to an average COE pastor sometime: they'll be doing their utmost to be relevant and modern.

Quote

That's the point! I DON'T CARE IF THEY FIND IT DEPLORABLE! Their opinion means nothing to me. But that's not what we're talking about. They can feel however they want to feel, as long as it ends there. Just because they find my attitude deplorable does not give them an extra right to affect my life in any negative way because of it.

How can their opinion affect your life negatively if you don't care about it?

Quote

That's your opinion. I mostly disagree. (the Peter Rabbit "complainers" are not really the problem here, only just one small example of a much greater problem)

Please find an example of the far left that is of equal extremity to advocating genocide as in the case of far right groups.

Quote

Really? REALLY? NO effect? Tell that to anyone and everyone that has been a victim of these SJWs, had their lives turned upside down and/or irreparably altered because of some jackass misinterpreting another person's innocent comment/message/whatever and gathering the masses with their torches. These people go out of their way, devote actual time from their lives, to ABSOLUTELY EFFECT people in negative ways. Not trying to open dialogue, or change minds. Just plain old mob justice.

They aren't you. I'm referring to these two statements:

Quote

What I CANNOT accept is ANYONE, EVER, telling what I can say, what I can think, or what I can feel. There are no words or alternate perspectives that will change that.

Yes, and I see the distinction you're making. I believe XJ is making the same distinction. The only problem is, we are too. The ideas you guys are talking about are not offensive to me in any way. But we're not complaining about THOSE ideas. We're talking about the real world practice of a significant number of those same thinkers (not going to say "majority" cuz who knows, but it's for sure a lot of people at this point). They go beyond the simple ideas, and into a "war to be won at all costs". But maybe we don't see the calls for boycotts the same. If you contact a company or a person about a grievance in efforts to hopefully change something, then you've done your part. If you immediately take to social media to grow your group and actively call for a boycott, how is that not harassment?

Again, for me it comes down to the power dynamic. A lone voice against a corporation is going to fail no matter what. Organised boycotts (and unions come to think of it) serve o equalize the relative power dynamic.

Transgender is not a disorder in the DSM. You're thinking of gender dysphoria.

Yes, you are right; I'm sorry for my sloppy reference. (Seriously).

Quote

The DSM is not hard science. It's a perspective. It is also focused on disorder meaning something that makes life difficult and challenging in a more than tolerable way. Homelessness is listed in it as well. The reason something like gender dysphoria is in the DSM is because experiencing it, in our society, causes a ton of mental anguish, not because it's a mental imbalance, which I think you're implying.

It's not hard science, but it is a respected and relatively objective standard. Yes it changes, but that doesn't mean that everything in it is subject to rejection or revision.

As for the second, you're the professional here, so I'm not arguing with you, but is that latter statement really true? I know it's gone through some revisions with respect to "addiction", and if "a ton of mental anguish" was the standard, why did "gambling" get in, but not "sex" or "food"?

Quote

Also I don't know why you're even bringing up transgender, since the rest of your sentence is about terminology. No one is being outraged at the use of transgender.

I'm bringing it up because we're still at the early stages of learning about it (as opposed to just managing the "symptoms") and the PC crowd hasn't waited for any answers before they assumed the position and swung into action, thus chilling much of the meaningful dialogue that could later, someday, help people. I think the same thing happened to weed in the opposite direction.

Why isn't sex addiction in the DSM? Because the people writing it decided it shouldn't be in there. That's how subjective it all is.

We all, in the field, have a lot of problems with the DSM. That's why it changes every few years. It's not like it's 100% set in stone until some new groundbreaking scientific research presents a paradigm shift. Sometimes it's just that enough conversations start or the writers change out and then it' different. So using it as some 100% objective benchmark is just very off. The only reason psychologists even universally use the DSM is because insurance and HMOs demand it. If we didn't NEED to use it for those purposes, it wouldn't be used quite as much. I'll also point out that it's not a zero sum game, whereby if some things are true, then all of it must be true, or if some things are questionable, it's all worthless. For instance Schizophrenia and Gender Dysphoria are in the same book but have nothing to do with each other than being addressed in the same field. So how we approach thinking about psychotic disorders, or mood disorders, and then other things like pica, or enuresis or gender dysphoria shouldn't be seen as the same thing.

How we define much of this, not all of it, is also simply viewed as what's normal for most people, which is not always a great idea.

For instance. If someone reports to therapy that God is talking directly to them, we might pathalogize them. Yet if a pope or pastor or whatever does it, no big deal. If someone reports a strong belief that the a giant octopus is in control of their lives, we think they're crazy. Yet if someone says God is in control of their lives, no big deal.

There's no research that states that believing in god isn't a mental illness, we just assume it's not because most people believe in god. Unless of course the god is not a standard one, then we might entertain the mental illness thing.

Yet if I go on twitter and start declaring that all religious people are mentally ill (which I don't believe at all), you'd expect I'd face a whole lot of back lash. And if a person in power had said it, you'd expect riots.

So if you need hard scientific evidence that states as an objective fact that being transgender is NOT a mental illness, then I would like the same for anything else I can just name as a potential mental illness that also has no research contradicting it.

I'm kidding. Fair points, all of them, and I appreciate you taking the time to write all that.

But while you're clearly right, and know more about this than I do, I'm not saying that gender dysphoria IS a mental illness or even should be. Ultimately, I put that in because I wanted to make the point that while it's subjective (thanks to your enlightenment) it's not beyond the pale to suggest it might be. We ought to be able to have the conversation. And right now, with social media the way it is, and the PC culture the way it is, and the SJW being what they are, that conversation is not possible. It's just not. Hell, I'd even be willing to concede that social media isn't the place for the details of the conversation, but I would wager that we can't even suggest that the conversation SHOULD be had.

I'm kidding. Fair points, all of them, and I appreciate you taking the time to write all that.

But while you're clearly right, and know more about this than I do, I'm not saying that gender dysphoria IS a mental illness or even should be. Ultimately, I put that in because I wanted to make the point that while it's subjective (thanks to your enlightenment) it's not beyond the pale to suggest it might be. We ought to be able to have the conversation. And right now, with social media the way it is, and the PC culture the way it is, and the SJW being what they are, that conversation is not possible. It's just not. Hell, I'd even be willing to concede that social media isn't the place for the details of the conversation, but I would wager that we can't even suggest that the conversation SHOULD be had.

I've heard you say this many times, the idea of needing to have the conversation. And in general, I agree, but what do you mean?

What does this conversation look like? How long does it last? When does it end? Does it even need to end before we do something? Does having the conversation mean we remain in limbo in how we address the situation until the conversation is done?

I mean, if a politician introduces the idea that all bald people should not be allowed to have children (which would suck for me), should we make sure they couldn't have children until we have a multi-decade conversation until all sides are 100% in agreement?

I guess I just want more specifics. The idea is good, but what does it look like?

Also these conversations ARE being had. That's why I wonder what it looks like to you. Do you need everyone to agree until we do anything? Cause that won't happen.

Did we ever really have a conversation as to whether or not Jews are an inferior people? I mean, in general people just assumed we were until the holocaust and then it kind of got soured. But if someone starts posting on twitter that all Jews are inferior beings and are the cause of all troubles in this world, you'd likely not be too upset about a backlash to that.

It takes many forms. First and foremost, we have to be better at comprehension. We have to be able to separate HAVING the conversation, and the conversation itself. Meaning, I will likely be called out for both of these statements: "We need to know more psychiatrically and physiologically about gender dysmorphia, so that we can make better decisions about how to deal with the condition, how the people who have it can deal with it better (reference to the higher drug usage rates and higher suicide rates for people with gender dysmorphia), and how we can better accommodate this in our society by perhaps educating those that aren't aware of this condition." and "Fucking people who are transgender - ooops, sorry, have "gender dysmorphia" - are fucking sickos that shouldn't be on our streets." One is a legit call for more information, more data - but no action! - the latter is just hate and intolerance and a call for action in the form of ostracization.

Pragmatically, I get it; sometimes there ought to be a realpolitik around this; we have to balance tolerance and rights every day. I would very likely accept some backlash if someone posted that "Jews are inferior". It's not a statement meant to incite deep insight, and history shows that far more than "gender dysmorphia" (I guarantee you if you ask 10 people what a "jew" is, they'll have some idea, if you asked that same number what "gender dysmorphia" you'd be lucky if two know).

EDIT: Shepard Smith just said it far better than I could ever do it: "We put a man on the moon; we need to put our best and brightest on this issue, whatever it takes, and find out why our children are killing other children." It looks like the NRA and the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence (or whoever we agree is the largest anti-gun lobby) putting up 50% of their lobbying dollars to fund research with a tacit agreement that we follow the path of science. However the cards fall, they fall. It looks like a temporary injunction on the one or two main points of interest of the anti-gun lobby - say, bumpstocks, ammo limits, whatever - and a temporary ban on sales or possession of a gun by anyone on a watch list or medical incapacity list. We have the goods to have Amazon suggest I'd really LOVE Ozzy's Diary of a Madman because I bought "Paranoid", we can ask Alexa how to make a grilled cheese ("The recipe is IN THE FUCKING TITLE!"), and we can control a satellite almost 5 BILLION miles from our planet, but we can't tie in social media well enough to police this? We can scan terabytes of data from the Soviet Union to catch phrases that might mean Putin has another nuclear sub or two, or determine that Hillary Clinton scrubbed 5, 296 emails from her personal server between the hours of 4:00 and 7:00 pm eastern on February whatever the hell, but we can't relate the "Nikolas Cruz" that wants to be a "professional school shooter" with the "Nikolas Cruz" that was voted by his classmates as "the most likely kid to lay waste to his high school"? Most importantly, we can issue FISA warrants to monitor Carlton Page but not this kid?

We may or may not have a gun problem but I guarantee you we have a priority problem.

Meaning, I will likely be called out for both of these statements: "We need to know more psychiatrically and physiologically about gender dysmorphia, so that we can make better decisions about how to deal with the condition, how the people who have it can deal with it better (reference to the higher drug usage rates and higher suicide rates for people with gender dysmorphia), and how we can better accommodate this in our society by perhaps educating those that aren't aware of this condition."

Well that sounds like a good start for a conversation, not something to break out the pitchforks and torches. I know someone through youtube who was suffering from Gender Dysphoria (not dysmorphia by the way) and the solution was to transition. She's much happier and healthier now living as woman.

And gender dysphoria is the feeling of anguish of essentially being in the wrong body. It'd be like making a mental illness out of a gay person being forced to only have heterosexual sex. Life would be pretty awful and can be quickly helped by the person being allowed to do what they need to do live congruently.

Instead the conversation has the assumption of "what is wrong with these people, what is broken, how did they get messed up and how can we fix it in a way that keeps them cisgender?" Those are painfully awful assumptions to make.

But you, Stads, did make a brief good point about all of the surrounding elements like drug use, or suicide rates, or stuff like that with transgender people. THAT should be a conversation. How can we make it so they don't feel so rejected and judged and bullied by society that they resort to this. How do we help prevent the insane levels of trauma and abuse experienced by the LGBT community? I would love to have those discussions. However, "why are they transgender? Is it biological or did something make them that way?" is less interesting or helpful in general. Helpful to a degree, but definitely not the most important thing.

Also quick thing, we don't call transgender people "those suffering from gender dysphoria". We call them transgender, or non-binary, or something like that. No one is offended by the word transgender. Well, I'm sure someone is, but meh.

But you're doing exactly what I'm railing against. You're not really listening to the ARGUMENT, you're commenting on the fact that I'm (presumably) not being "sensitive" enough in my reference. Fair point, personally, since I don't at all want to be insensitive, but still. The point is, EVEN IF I'M WRONG we should be having the conversation ABOUT the topic, not finding ways to stop it from happening.

I'm not at all interested in "curing" someone. If you follow me on other points, I'm nothing if not consistent; if someone of sound mind and full consent wants to change their gender, they should be able to do so, full stop. This isn't about stopping people from transitioning and making them more like me. It's about making them as complete a human as they can be. Right now, transitioning is the best way (or so it seems). The one person I know that transitioned was troubled before, and is better now but is still struggling. I think we owe it to her (yes, I did that correctly) to know as much about why she felt she had to do that as we do for why some 50-year old doesn't bone up like he used to.

But we are having the conversation. It's happening. You can research it if you want. Most conversations like that are being had between professionals, not usually making CNN or FOX.

That doesn't give you guys the right to say anything at all and expect everyone to shut up and take it.

I think you should be able to ask whatever questions you want, and everyone should treat you with respect, as long as the questions are sincere and not to make a point as an argument.

"Are transgender people born that way or does something happen to make them that way?" Fine question. Not terribly important, but a fine question nonetheless. People should discuss it respectively. Sadly we don't, but we should.

"Are transgender people REALLY wanting us to think they're born that way? REALLY?!?!?" That is not a sincere question and will understandably be met with defensiveness and offense.

So having the conversation is fine. HOW we have that conversation really matters though.

But like I said, if I post on twitter "Are Christians (picking them because they're the largest majority) mentally ill for their beliefs?", that would be met with all the same anger that you're against. Yet that's NOT a conversation anyone is looking to have, because the people in power have just assumed that it's not a problem or an issue worth discussing.

So while the conversations are fine to have, WHAT we have them about is a sign of a major power differential and you're expecting minorities to constantly defend their very existence to the satisfaction of the majority, who never have to defend or converse about their stuff at all.

But you're doing exactly what I'm railing against. You're not really listening to the ARGUMENT, you're commenting on the fact that I'm (presumably) not being "sensitive" enough in my reference. Fair point, personally, since I don't at all want to be insensitive, but still. The point is, EVEN IF I'M WRONG we should be having the conversation ABOUT the topic, not finding ways to stop it from happening.

I'm not at all interested in "curing" someone. If you follow me on other points, I'm nothing if not consistent; if someone of sound mind and full consent wants to change their gender, they should be able to do so, full stop. This isn't about stopping people from transitioning and making them more like me. It's about making them as complete a human as they can be. Right now, transitioning is the best way (or so it seems). The one person I know that transitioned was troubled before, and is better now but is still struggling. I think we owe it to her (yes, I did that correctly) to know as much about why she felt she had to do that as we do for why some 50-year old doesn't bone up like he used to.

Well there goes that good start... It seems we're drifting back into the problem I often have in our exchanges (problems wich are more often than not just me being a dick I'll gladly concede) wich you say want to have a conversation but you only want to have it on your narrowly defineed terms and anything else you consider to be bullying somehow.